Minutes of the meeting
of the Twelve Plus Group Steering Committee
Sénat, Paris, Monday 5th March 2012
Attendants:
Mr Robert del
Picchia (France), Chair, Ms. Heidrun Silhavy (Austria), Mr
François-Xavier de Donnea, (Belgium), Mr Donald Oliver (Canada), Ms. Barbara
Contini (Italy), Mr Marek Ziołkowski (Poland), Mr Robert Walter (United
Kingdom), Mr Krister Örnfjäder (Sweden), Mr Pierre-François Veillon
(Switzerland).
The meeting
started at nine o'clock, chaired by President of the Twelve Plus Steering
Committee Mr Robert del Picchia (France).
1. Opening of the meeting
Mr Robert del
Picchia (France), Chair, welcomed all present,
especially new members of the Steering Committee: Ms. Barbara Contini (Italy)
and Mr Pierre-François Veillon (Switzerland).
2. Adoption of the Agenda
The Chair noted that the draft Agenda did not call for any comment.
The Agenda
was approved.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of the Twelve Plus Group
Steering Committee, held in Paris on Monday 12th September 2011
The Minutes
were approved without comment.
4. Matters related to previous meetings
This item did
not call for any comments.
MATTERS RELATED
TO THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
5. Matters
related to the Executive Committee
The Chair reminded colleagues that the Twelve Plus Group had entrusted its
working group on the IPU Strategy with the task of finding possible saving
sources in the organisation's budget.
Mr François-Xavier
de Donnea (Belgium), Rapporteur of the working
group, mentioned the discussion note sent on 30th January, and how
three members of the group – Ms. Prammer, Mr Lammert and Mr Örnfjäder – as well
as Mr Lorentzen, had reacted to it. The question was about where to apply
budget cuts. The objectives, and sub-objectives of the IPU Strategy for
2012-2017 had been ranked by the Twelve Plus according to their priority –
high, medium or low. Only two out of nine – the fifth and sixth ones, regarding
international development goals and conflict prevention – had been deemed
secondary. But to simply discard some objectives, or even some sub-objectives,
would be unrealistic. On the other hand, there were definitely too many
activities planned to fulfil them. Having fewer would allow for more relevant
savings. Mr Lammert agreed, but MM. Örnfjäder and Lorentzen did not want
to decide out of hand the idea that whole categories should be discarded. They
cited the fifth and sixth objectives, for which there were very low funds
anyway. However, the 2012 budget did not allow for a decision on where cuts
could be implemented. To that end, a more detailed analysis of various planned
activities and their allocated resources was needed. The Subcommittee on
Finance seemed the most appropriate body for the task.Mr Örnfjäder had actually
suggested adding an extra column in the table of strategic directions of the
IPU. The idea was to show, for each performed activity, how much was allocated
to it – either within the primary budget or voluntary contributions – and the
share of wage costs. From this, it would be up to the members of the working
group to decide where cuts should be applied – although diverging opinions
would be likely. Some positions were not related to any objective or
sub-objective in particular, such as the organising of Assemblies or the
operating of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians. Even though
those activities were central to the organisation, their costs had to be
thoroughly examined. Importantly, the savings had to apply to the primary
budget, since members' contributions depended on it. To some extent, one could
rely on voluntary contributions to restrict cuts, but it was highly unlikely
that the economic situation would allow an increase that could compensate the
409,000 Swiss Francs deficit. The last item on the discussion note regarded
staff costs. The United Nations' pay scales had been applied to the IPU staff,
and this should not be questioned. However, other payroll factors could be
acted upon, and Mr Lorentzen said he wished the staff were reduced by 10%.Cuts
in activities, for instance, should imply staff reductions. Similarly, money
could be saved by checking whether each position's wages matched the
corresponding responsibilities. But information was missing about this too. The
Subcommittee on Finance, with help from the General Secretariat, should issue a
report prior to a possible reform which would not save much money anyway.
Members of the working group had suggested other means of saving.Mr Örnfjäder
and Ms. Prammer had talked about possibly organising IPU Assemblies in Geneva
as of 2014, or even to suppress one of the two yearly Assemblies as a last
resort. Another solution would be for the hosting country to cover the Secretariat's
travel expenses. However in that case, there might be fewer countries willing
to host an Assembly. It was also suggested that accompanying personnel might be
excluded, but this would not affect the IPU's budget, as it did not cover such
costs. Finally, cuts could be made within travel expenses – although this might
affect the organisation's influence – or publication costs, for instance by
favouring online publications to paper documents.
The next step
would be to get the list of budgeted activities for 2012 which the Secretariat
planned to maintain in 2013, as well as their detailed costs, so that the
members of the working group could rank them according to their priority. The
ranking could be debated in Kampala, first within the working group, and then
within the Twelve Plus Group.
The Chair agreed with the idea of adding a fourth column to the table of
strategic directions in order to state which activities were effectively
carried out and at what cost. He wondered, however, what percentage such
activities had within the whole IPU budget compared to, say, travel expenses or
staff costs. The primary budget had decreased by about 8%, but due to
fluctuations of the Swiss Franc, its setting currency, members' contributions
had barely been reduced. Now, the member States' efforts would be in vain if
they could no longer afford for their Parliamentarians to attend IPU meetings:
thus, the French delegation in Kampala would consist of just five
Parliamentarians, instead of eight. This was why the Executive Committee would
have to be as firm as it had been the previous year when it set up the 2013
budget, and demand further reductions of allocated funds.
Mr
François-Xavier de Donnea (Belgium) noted that on
top of direct costs, each activity had indirect costs due to the amount of time
the IPU Secretariat dedicated to it. Suppressing a number of activities should
therefore have an impact on the number of civil servants, travel expenses or
communication costs. Only proper detailed accounting for each activity – taking
general costs into account – would avoid linear cuts, which were blind in
essence.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) reminded that he represented the
Twelve Plus Group on the Subcommittee on Finance. The Subcommittee was due to
meet again on 13th March and, with help from outside consultants,
would look for solutions to the Inter-parliamentary Union's funding problems,
especially by finding a way to save at least 409,000 Swiss Francs. He noted
that the IPU's income could be increased thanks to the voluntary contributions,
whether they came from member States or from the private sector. The
Secretariat would set up a specific toolbox to encourage such contributions,
but members of the delegations could also approach their Governments and
countries' businesses. Furthermore, budget cuts needed to be consistent with
the IPU Strategy for 2012 to 2017. The budget situation called for cuts to
objectives 5 and 6, as suggested by the Twelve Plus, especially as there were
international organisations better suited to act within those fields. The
Inter-parliamentary Union should focus on activities it could best deal with
and on sectors where it could have the highest impact. However, simply linear
cuts could annihilate some activities. Priorities should therefore be set, to
which end more detailed information was needed, especially regarding the direct
and indirect costs of each activity and the exact content of objectives,
sub-objectives and actions. Before decisions were made, what happened on the
field and with planned implementations should be known, so that such decisions
effectively reduced the IPU budget. Other possible saving sources were the
organising of Assemblies and staff costs. All options should be considered: one
single yearly Assembly, two Assemblies in Geneva, shorter Assemblies, a tighter
Agenda, or excluding accompanying staff. Mr Örnfjäder had tried to match the
items of the IPU Strategy in Mr de Donnea's table and the IPU's general 2012
budget data. Such cross-matching clearly showed fields where action could be
taken and those where it could not. Unfortunately, the Twelve Plus was the only
Geopolitical Group to use such a document. All others referred to the budget
set by the Secretariat.
Mr Robert
Walter (United Kingdom) thanked Mr de Donnea and Mr
Örnfjäder for their work.
He noted that
the Twelve Plus was the only Geopolitical Group to have been truly engaged in
looking for saving means, on top of not being fully backed up by the
Secretariat. The Secretariat would rather wait till the end of the storm, as
shown by its budgetary estimates over the next years. Those showed increased
costs in 2013 and 2014, which national Parliaments were not willing to accept.
Therefore, the Secretariat had to be reminded that funds should be frozen.
Regarding wage costs, he wondered whether the IPU could use the pay scales of
coordinated organisations such as NATO, the OECD or the Council of Europe. He
added that communication between Parliamentarians from all countries was one of
the very reasons for the Inter-parliamentary Union. It would therefore fail in
its mission, should it restrict meeting opportunities such as the annual
Assemblies. Furthermore, he thought the IPU should better target its
activities, even if that meant suppressing secondary activity fields. He noted
that staff costs made up for about 66% of the organisation's expenses, and
suggested the possibility of using outer consultants to examine the management
of the Inter-parliamentary Union. Although he knew from experience that such
consultants usually only suggested decisions already known to be necessary,
their work could perhaps strengthen the legitimacy of those decisions,
especially for the staff, and allow the IPU to lighten its structure whilst
being able to fulfil its objectives.
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) also acknowledged Mr de Donnea's
analysis. He stressed that three major items would be considered by the IPU's
Executive Committee and would certainly lead to decisions in Kampala: the
structure of the second annual Assembly, including its contents, expenses,
operating; the role of the Standing Committees; and the operating of the IPU
Committee on United Nations Affairs. The Inter-parliamentary Union had a
permanent observer's status at the United Nations Organisation, which set it
apart from all other parliamentary organisations. All agreed on the need to
strengthen the relationship between the two bodies, even though the IPU's
Special Committee hardly operated on a democratic basis, since its members were
directly appointed by the Union's President, who did not consult the
Geopolitical Groups and acted in all but transparency. However, considering the
relationship between the two international organisations, it could be suggested
that the UN itself fund some IPU activities. Mr Oliver reminded the Committee
members that Mr de Donnea thought that objectives 7 and 8, namely the
relationship with members and communication, should be primary. In terms of
communication, precisely, what actions were being taken? Had the website been
improved? Finally, as suggested by Mr de Donnea, the Executive Committee should
consider priorities on a five-year, or at least three-year, basis, rather than
do it once a year as it currently did.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) thought that reviewing the
frequency or structure of the annual Assemblies should not be rejected out of
hand. A Geneva Assembly cost 400,000 Swiss Francs on average, half the cost of
an Assembly hosted elsewhere! Naturally, such meetings were justified, but they
could also be a saving source. In any case, the Twelve Plus should offer
concrete proposals to the Subcommittee on Finance in order to save money.
Mr Marek
Ziołkowski (Poland) noted that the era of
abundance had ended and that the Welfare State was going through a crisis. In
this very restricted financial context, a unique budgetary document, as
suggested, would help knowingly consider all possible saving sources.
However, the
possible reduction of yearly Assemblies would affect the very reason of being
of the IPU, namely to allow Parliamentarians to talk to each other. As such,
the structure of delegations was sometimes problematic in countries where there
were more political parties in Parliament – as in Poland. Finally, the
alignment of civil servants' pay scales on those of the UN should not be
questioned. However, some activities, and even some objectives, should be
funded thanks to voluntary contributions.
Mr
Pierre-François Veillon (Switzerland) thought that
five-year budgetary forecasts would be much more effective than the current system.
The Twelve Plus had the means to put pressure on the IPU budget, and the IPU
should maintain a certain level of activity, though it primarily remained a
meeting place - hence why clear priorities were needed. As for voluntary
contributions, they would not be part of the regular budget, since they would
apply to targeted and one-off actions.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) agreed with the idea of a
five-year budget. But would the Twelve Plus be able to determine an appropriate
amount, as this alone would guarantee any trust in this proposal?
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) noted that he had been under heavy
pressure to reduce the annual 400,000 Canadian dollars' contribution paid by
his Parliament to the IPU. The Assembly in Quebec City in October 2012 would cost
5 million Canadian dollars! Furthermore, Canada, as other countries, agreed to
high voluntary contributions through the CIDA, which allowed the funding of
many projects. The President of the IPU had recently been to the Middle-East to
try and raise funds following the success of the Global Organization
of Parliamentarians against Corruption, or GOPAC, which had recently
received funds of 6 million dollars over three years from the Middle-East.
Action should be taken accordingly.
Mr
Pierre-François Veillon (Switzerland) stressed that
a difference should be made between voluntary contributions and the regular
budget, which should increase after 2013.
The Chair confirmed that voluntary contributions, at 1.2 million Swiss Francs
in 2012, were not part of the regular budget, since they applied to targeted
and one-off actions.
Mr
François-Xavier de Donnea (Belgium) welcomed the
consensus to get further information on activities planned in the budget, as
well as their carrying out. He reminded colleagues of the importance of
objective 4 – developing the parliamentary aspect of the UN work. This would
avoid the ad hoc establishment of a parliamentary assembly within the
UN, which would have affected the IPU's credibility. The IPU could further
adjust its activities to those of the UN and give it this parliamentary
dimension. In return, perhaps the UN could further contribute to the funding of
the IPU. Regarding communication-related actions, especially redesigning the
website, it was still too early in the year to notice results. Furthermore,
establishing priorities over a three-year, or preferably a five-year period,
was indeed desirable. The IPU's ambitions would still have to be restricted,
but the nine objectives could be maintained, even if that meant suppressing
some activities. Indeed, suppressing objectives 5 and 6 might very well save
funds, but would prevent the IPU, for instance, from contributing to the
possible recovery of a government after a severe crisis. In any case, debating
objectives every year was not relevant. They would benefit from being
established over a longer period. Voluntary contributions should obviously be
strongly encouraged, even though they applied to targeted activities, which
would not reduce the overall expenses. Having both yearly Assemblies in Geneva
should not be excluded. If it was, a higher financial implication from the
hosting country could be considered. Finally, adopting different pay scales
could be considered, but this might cause many problems within the Secretariat,
and the resulting savings would after all be small.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) thought that the Twelve Plus
should absolutely refrain from suggesting a review of the staff's pay scales to
the Secretariat, unless another valid and effective solution had been found
beforehand.
The Chair reminded the Committee that contributions to the IPU were higher
than others paid per number of Parliaments to other inter-parliamentary
assemblies. As a comparison, the UNESCO currently experienced a large deficit,
made worse by the fact that the United States and Israel had stopped paying
their contributions. Expenses had therefore had to be restricted in several
fields: travel expenses had been cut, temporary staff reduced, many activities
suppressed or postponed, and the whole working capital used. Those were some of
the radical measures the UNESCO had implemented in the face of an extremely
dire budgetary context. Regarding the IPU's budget, Mr de Donnea's working
group would meet again in Kampala. Parliaments that had not already done so
could send him their general comments before mid-March, as Mr Örnfjäder would
draw a completed budget table following the next meeting of the Subcommittee on
Finance on Tuesday 13th March. The Twelve Plus Group, consisting of
the main contributors to the IPU budget, could legitimately request a
reduction. Indeed, its member countries, often seen as rich, could no longer
support such level of expenses, as some of them were in huge debt.
6. Preparation of the 126th Assembly in Kampala, Uganda.
The Chair stated that the general discussion at the 126th Assembly
would be the following: “Bridging the gap between Parliaments and citizens.”
Two meetings would also be held to debate children's malnutrition and rights
regarding the fight against AIDS. The Twelve Plus Group had a rapporteur in
each of the three Standing Committees. To this day, no emergency item had been
suggested, but the situation in Syria deserved a strong reaction from the IPU.
The Twelve Plus could suggest an emergency item about this, provided that some
countries from the Arab Group agreed.
Mr Robert
Walter (United Kingdom) had actually thought about
suggesting an emergency item on Syria, since the situation there required a
strong reaction from the IPU. The proposal would benefit from being put forward
by the Twelve Plus, but support from delegations of the Arab Group was
paramount.
Mr Marek
Ziołkowski (Poland) suggested that the idea be
put forward to President Radi.
The Chair, too, thought that a draft resolution could be considered jointly
with members of the Arab Group. He then asked members about possible subject
proposals for the 128th Assembly in Quito.
Mr
Pierre-François Veillon (Switzerland) suggested a
theme on strengthening the role of Parliament in States emerging from conflict
or in transition. Sharing experiences about this would be very beneficial
following work done for the IPU by the Centre for the Democratic Control of
Armed Forces, a Geneva-based NGO. This would complement the subject of the Arab
Spring, currently covered by the First Standing Committee.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) said that the Norwegian
delegation wished to suggest to the second Standing Committee the subject of
the role of Parliaments in fighting climate change and in adopting new
technologies to reduce green-house gases emissions due to fossil fuels.
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) suggested that the third Standing
Committee study the use of social media and the Internet in strengthening the
citizens' democracy. Indeed, the growing use of new technologies required
Parliamentarians to go beyond traditional practice and come up with a more
interactive relationship with the voters.
The Chair added that these social media depended on highly profitable
businesses that could possibly fund some IPU activities! Regarding this, the
Assembly in Quito would incur high costs which would have to be thoroughly
examined.
Mr
François-Xavier de Donnea (Belgium) suggested that
the second Standing Committee cover the subject of alternative funding
development aid.
Regarding the
cost of Assemblies, Mr Krister Örnfjäder (Sweden) noted that any
decision on their structure or frequency would have to be made at least two
years prior to its implement.
7. Vacancies
The Chair said that Mr Pierre-François Veillon, as agreed, would complete Ms.
Doris Stump's term, his predecessor on the Executive Committee. The term would
end in October 2013. There were two vacancies on the Committee on the Human
Rights of Parliamentarians. As agreed in Bern, Mr Ulf Nilsson (Sweden) would,
at the 127th Assembly in Quebec City, take the substitute's position
becoming available during the 126th Assembly in Kampala. But, should
he so wish, Mr Nilsson could obviously apply to one of the vacant permanent
positions. A substitute's position was vacant on the Committee on Middle East
Questions. Both permanent and substitute position had to be filled on the
Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians. French Senator
Ms. Michele André had announced she had applied for this position.
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) and Mr Pierre-François Veillon
(Switzerland) respectively announced that Canadian Senator Salma
Attaullahjan and a Swiss Parliamentarian had applied.
The Chair said that a permanent position was also vacant on the Committee to
Promote Respect for International Humanitarian Law. Finally, there were three
vacancies for the Twelve Plus Group on the Advisory Group of the IPU Committee
on United Affairs. The Chair had received applications from Messrs. Thomas
Silberhorn (Germany) and Dennis Dawson (Canada).Mr François-Xavier de Donnea
(Belgium) announced he too would apply.
The Chair reminded colleagues that application forms should be returned to the
Secretariat of the Twelve Plus Group by 27th March at the latest.
8. Inter-parliamentary Union membership
The Chair informed colleagues that the Executive Committee would have to
decide about the Haitian Parliament's request for renewed subscription and on
that of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (EMCCA) for
Associate Membership. The Chair also said that generally speaking, a growing
number of organisations were being given observer status at the IPU. So far,
about fifty representatives of Associate Members or of observer organisation
attended the Union's Assemblies. And although Associate Members did pay some
contributions – albeit lower than that of full Members –, observers did not pay
anything. So far, extra costs incurred by such numerous presence had been
covered by the Union. The budgetary context being what it was, it might be good
to suggest to the Executive Committee that observer status should from now on
imply some contribution, even a very low one. (Approval)
9. Special IPU meetings since the 125th Assembly in Bern.
The Chair stated that the annual parliamentary hearing jointly organised by
the IPU and the UN had been held at the United Nations in New York on 28th
and 29th November. The parliamentary assembly for the Fourth High
Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness had been held in Busan (Korean Republic) from
29th November to 1st December 2011. The parliamentary
assembly for the UN Climate Conference had been held in Durban (South Africa)
on 5th December 2011. It should be made sure that all special
meetings had had constructive results.
10. Other matters related to the IPU
The Chair asked Executive Committee member Mr Donald Oliver to present the
main items on the Agenda of the 263rd session of the Executive
Committee in Kampala, as well as the schedule of the 127th Assembly,
to be held in Quebec City in October 2012.
Mr Donald Oliver
(Canada) stated that the Executive Committee would
have to implement the 2012-2017 IPU Strategy in Kampala. To this end, it would
have to carry on exchanges about whether the new schedule, adopted on a trial
basis for the second yearly Assembly, would meet the members' expectations. The
first series of consultations on the subject allowed Geopolitical Groups to
express various suggestions and recommendations on the structure and operating
of the Standing Committees, the selection of members of their bureaus, the
decisions on items on the Agenda and the appointment of rapporteurs. All these
items would have to be decided upon.
This morning,
during the discussion following Mr de Donnea's report on the Union's budget, it
was suggested that one of the two yearly Assemblies be suppressed. But wasn't
it the IPU's goal to strengthen inter-parliamentary exchange? As stated by the
Chair, the Executive Committee would have to decide on the Haitian Parliament's
request for renewed subscription and on that of the EMCCA for membership. It
would also have to consider the situation of some member Parliaments. Finally,
the Executive Committee would have to discuss the state of the partnership
between the IPU and the UN system, which some would like to strengthen. The Advisory
Group of the IPU Committee on United Affairs, whose working modalities had been
approved by the Governing Council during its 182nd session (Cape
Town, April 2008), had carried out important work to this end.
Mr Donald Oliver
also reminded that during its 185th session, the Governing Council
had granted the Canadian Parliament's wish to host the 127th IPU
Assembly in Quebec City. For the following session, he decided that this
Assembly would use the model of the second yearly Assembly, with two extra days
of meetings, and that the structure of delegations would be consistent with
statutory provisions applicable to the second yearly Assembly. The Assembly in
Quebec City, to be held in one of the most multiethnic and multicultural
countries in the world, would have as its main theme, "Citizenship,
identity and linguistic and cultural diversity: The challenges of an
interdependent world." In accordance with agreements with the hosting
Parliament, the latter would cover the costs of the two extra days of meetings
at the 127th Assembly.
The Chair thanked Mr Donald Oliver for those specifications.
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) deemed it useful that the Steering
Committee of the Twelve Plus Group give their opinion on the situation of some
member Parliaments before the Executive Committee discussed them.
The Chair acknowledged the problem that the meeting of the Executive Committee
would be held before that of the Steering Committee of the Twelve Plus Group.
But the sensitivity of the two representatives of the Group on the Executive
Committee could be relied upon. Furthermore, the item would be debated during
the plenary of the Twelve Plus Group.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) informed colleagues that he
intended for the Inter-parliamentary Union to apply for the 2013 Peace Nobel
Prize, in accordance with the Nobel Committee's criteria. In 1901 and 1903
respectively, Inter-parliamentary Union co-founders Frederic Passy and William
Randal Cremer had both received the Peace Nobel Prize, and six other public
figures had received the high distinction for their work within the
organisation. However, the Union itself had never been commended for its
long-term action towards peace. Receiving the Prize would strengthen its
credibility. However, the IPU would have other contenders. Its application
would have to be reinforced by being put forward and backed by several
Parliaments and Governments from all continents and Geopolitical Groups.
The Chair thought that, should the Inter-parliamentary Union receive the Peace
Nobel Prize, it would grow more notorious. Member Parliaments and Governments
would welcome the Prize, and this would help justify financial efforts granted
to the IPU. Finally, the significant sponsorship allocated by the Nobel
Committee would benefit the restricted budget. For all these reasons, Mr
Krister Örnfjäder's call for action should be heard.
11. Schedule of activities and meetings at the 126th
Assembly of the IPU in Kampala.
The Chair stated that the first meeting of the Twelve Plus would be held on
Friday 30th March at 2.15pm, in the Gardenia room of the Imperial
Royal Hotel. The following meetings would be held on Monday 2nd
April, Tuesday 3rd April and Wednesday 4th April from 8
to 9am – the latter still to be confirmed –, and on Thursday 5th
April from 9 to 10am.The Group's formal dinner was planned on 30th
March at 7.45pm, in the Rwenzori room of the Kampala Sheraton Hotel.
12. Twelve Plus Group Membership – requests for Membership from the
Parliaments of Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
The Chair said that the Steering Committee had to adopt a recommendation on
membership requests from the Ukrainian and Azerbaijani Parliaments before the
Group made its decision at the plenary in Kampala, via two separate votes with
a two-third majority. Those countries were the only ones not to belong to any
Geopolitical Group within the IPU. As stated in the Twelve Plus Group's rules,
its members had to belong to the Council of Europe and abide by the democratic
principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which included having a
democratic multi-party system. The former condition was officially followed by
Ukraine and Azerbaijan, however the latter was problematic. Indeed, the
Committee for commitments and obligations of member States of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) had been worried over criminal
prosecutions in Ukraine against several former members of the Government, such
as Ms. Ioulia Timochenko, its weak judiciary, the lack of integration of the
main PACE recommendations and of the Venice Commission in the new electoral
code – applicable to the legislative elections on 29th October –,
and the slowing down of the reform of authorities. The monitoring committee had
also asked that the separation of powers, the role of the Parliament and the
freedom of the press be effectively guaranteed in Azerbaijan, while the OSCE
and the European Parliament had noted that the implementation of Human Rights
was somehow difficult in that country. Logically, Azerbaijan should join the
Eurasian Group, but due to neighbourhood conflicts and historically difficult
relationships with some members, this was a problematic option. The Steering
Committee should therefore wonder whether those countries should better be left
outside the Twelve Plus or, on the contrary, be welcomed, so this could
hopefully have an influence on them. The Chair suggested that the
representatives of their delegations be heard in Kampala before any decision
was made.
Mr Marek
Ziołkowski (Poland) agreed with this
suggestion. He also said that, even though the Ukrainian democracy was not
completely up to Twelve Plus standards, it would make sense geographically if
Ukraine joined the Group, as the country was a neighbour of Poland. This would
also help this country to move forward, especially thanks to representatives of
the Opposition within its delegation. The establishment of a parliamentary
Assembly of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine had been a positive experience, which
should prompt the Twelve Plus to integrate Ukraine. On the other hand, Azerbaijan
would probably be better suited to the Eurasian Group.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) deemed it easier to deal with
such matters between peers, but said he was in favour of the Chair's proposal.
Mr Robert
Walter (United Kingdom) reminded that Ukraine and
Azerbaijan were active members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, and that their representatives had been elected via a process that had
been deemed free and fair by international observers. These young democracies
might well be under scrutiny, but other members of the Twelve Plus were too,
such as Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia. Joining the Group could help them.
Ms. Barbara
Contini (Italy) thought that the difficult
relationship between Azerbaijan and the Eurasian was not enough to justify this
country to join the Twelve Plus, but she agreed with Mr Robert Walter. Despite
the difficulties acknowledged in Ukraine, this country could only be helped by
joining the Group: for instance, the Opposition would have extra means of expressing
itself.
The Chair stressed that Mr Norbert Lammert (Germany) had stated that he was
not particularly favourable to Ukraine and Azerbaijan joining the Group. Given
such discussions, the Steering Committee could adopt a recommendation that was
rather favourable, but with reservations.
Mr Donald
Oliver (Canada) said he was favourable to this, and
to the hearings suggested by The Chair.
This was
decided.
13. Matters related to the Twelve Plus Group
The Chair said he had received a membership request from the President of the
Assembly of Montenegro, even though this country had been a Twelve Plus member
since the 2010 Assembly in Bangkok. As Montenegro had not acted at all within
the Group, The Chair suggested its contributions' arrears – 596 euros per year
– be cleared and to invite the country to join the Group's work, whilst
faithfully fulfilling the ensuing financial obligations.
14. Financial matters
The Chair stated that the French Group, now the account holder, had received
£51,671.40, or €59,790.88, on 31st December 2010. The sum had been
deposited on current and deposit accounts. As at 31st December 2011,
46 out of 47 countries had paid their yearly contributions, amounting to a
total of €42,910.34, namely 98.5% of the expected amount – €43,558.As at 5th
March, the Twelve Plus's account was in credit of €71,000. Taking into account
bank charges and money transfer fees – an amount of €237.39 –, expenses
amounted to a total of €48,293.17 for 2011. As this amount was 8% higher than
that of income, the Group had started a lifestyle reform, which applied both to
general working costs and the organisation of Steering Committees. Furthermore,
the 5% reduction of contributions called for renewed vigilance. As at 29th
February 2012, 18 out 47 countries had paid their contributions, amounting to
€16,898, namely around 41% of the expected amount, now €41,394.This situation
was common at this time of year; the Twelve Plus was not in difficulty.
15. Date of the next meeting
The next meeting
was set to be held on Monday 17th September 2012.
16. Any other business
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) thought that they should not
wait until September to discuss budget-related items to be presented by the
Secretariat following work in Kampala. Discussions could be held via Skype or
any other equivalent medium.
The Chair noted that the Secretariat should avoid making contact again at the
last minute, but he suggested waiting until 17th September to
discuss the items: by then, there would still be over a month to go before
Quebec City.
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) reminded colleagues that the
Subcommittee on Finance had been created to avoid the situation mentioned by
the Chair. He suggested that they should not wait until September to send out
signals, especially as the reforms would then be quickly implemented.
Pierre-François
Veillon (Switzerland) enquired whether the
Executive Committee could start working on the 2013 budget as early as Kampala:
it should especially discuss "financial resource mobilisation".
Mr Krister
Örnfjäder (Sweden) hoped that the meetings of the
Subcommittee on Finance and the Executive Committee would lead to fruitful
discussions in Kampala. The Secretariat's reflections should be assisted, but
members should also take an active role by making clear proposals within a
reasonable timeframe, so that they could be taken into account.
